Tag Archives: Science

In the news – Part I

Since I follow a lot of blogs and news-services online, I thought I’d share some of the better posts from time to time. So here goes part I.

Fan Service: On Losing Patience for Women Kissing
DS9 KissTalking about the Star Trek Deep Space Nine (one of my favourite TV-series) episode Rejoined where a female main character kisses another woman. These characters are of a race called Trill, who live in a symbiosis with a humanoid host. The story here goes that they used to be married in an earlier host or “life” and now meet again. This was a setting that allowed for a controversial scene at the time (1995)—two women kissing on TV. The blogpost makes some reflections on the topic.
Reposted from Skepchick.

Gender Gap Vanishes in Female-Empowered Cultures
Another topic that I have read a bit about lately … and watched a few BBC documentaries on. The biological difference between the brain of men and women. Interesting research showing that the differences may be even less “biological” than we’d think.
Reposted from Skepchick.

Quantum computer chips pass key milestones
So for a technology update. The article describes a new design based on superconducting electrical circuits as a competitor to current set-ups using photons or ions.
From NewScientist Physics & Math.

Science and Skepticism – Part 1

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

I have decided to write a few blog-posts on the topic of Science and Skepticism. I have recently been debating people from the alternative movement (read New Age) lately, and have a few thoughts on various subjects related to this, and also the type of subject I’m more used to discuss, religion.

The title “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection” I have stolen from Carl Sagan, an astrophysicist well know for both his popularization of science and for his skepticism. The title refers to his covering of the subject in his book The Demon-haunted World, a book on pseudoscience (a book I have read a few times and can absolutely recommend). More on his take on the art of baloney detection here.

Science - It works, bitchesAnyway, what I want to write about is not necessarily the well known list of logical fallacies, but rather a specific way of thinking that seems to be common amongst those who think “alternatively”. First, let me define what I mean by thinking alternatively. I am not referring to a person who thinks out of the box, or is curious, or just like to philosophise about life, the universe and everything. I am talking about those people that reject reality and substitute their own to put it in Mythbuster-terms. Science have established a set of techniques, or rules if you wish, by which we evaluate scientific theories, organize them, and test their validity. It has a built-in fault-correction mechanism and a fraud-correction mechanism. It is otherwise known as The Scientific Method.

… and now for the Baloney

So what is it exactly I’m getting at? Well, science consists of people, and people are driven by different things. So are scientists. Many have a certain theory or hypothesis they want to prove, or some idea they want to be right for various reasons. This makes for a potential pitfall, namely that of bias. Especially in more fringe types of science, people tend to be driven by a desire to prove something specific right. Examples are research into the paranormal and attempts at proving various dualistic mind-body concepts. There are also a lot of people who desperately wish to get famous by for instance finding a new theory of relativity, or a new string theory and such. The New Age movement and the alternativers thrive on these fringe sciences and the outright crackpots you also find there. These alternative thinking people tend to look for some kind of scientific validation of their ideas, and anything will do. Otherwise they will openly reject science as a valid way of gathering information about the world. They are in other words inconsistent and selective to the extreme.

Recently I have been debating someone who is convinced people can have parapsychological abilities like clairvoyance and such. He is convinced this is proven (no less) by quantum mechanics, arguably the most popular scientific theory to be abused by New Age. It is very tempting for the more informed of that crew to pick apart the philosophical problem surrounding quantum uncertainty, a topic called the Quantum mind-body problem. Some have suggested a dualistic interpretation of this, but this is the far end of the spectrum and highly speculative. There are much better suggestions which are in line with the otherwise very successful ways of interpreting nature. In any case, these fringes of philosophical interpretation of science is gasoline on the fire for what is otherwise known as quantum mysticism. To many of these people science is a symbol of closed-mindedness and an insufficient tool to interpret reality as they see it. However when they find something they can use, they glorify it and use it for all its worth and then some. But again, they will out of hand reject any other piece of science that might balance any fringe theories. Without exception, every time I have seen any New Ager or a creationist embrace something appearing to be science at first glance, it has proven to be either highly speculative fringe science or outright crackpots with an agenda.

So why can’t you New Agers and alties out there decide whether you accept science or not? And when and if you do choose to accept science, why do you always cherrypick and the insist that cherry is the only possible true cherry? No matter how rotten it may be? Either accept science and its methodology or stick to the mysticism.

 

Related links:

Don’t be a Dick

Dr. Phil Plait talks about how sceptics need to have in mind that winning the game is more important than scoring a cheap point. Sceptics sometimes makes it harder to get the message across by being too aggressive. He asks the question if sceptics actually are effective with their message. We are communicating a message people not necessarily want to hear, so the way we communicate is very important. Insults does not help. If there ever are to be a scepticism curriculum, this one should be a lecture.

A Comment on Organic Food

Every now and then you run into one of those organic food enthusiasts. The organic food industry makes grand claims about more nutrition, less toxins and being environmentally friendly, and many people buy into it. Most of these claims are unsupported by scientific research, at least at the level such benefits are claimed.

I am not against making sure the food we eat is healthy, and I always like to support environmentally friendly initiatives, but this industry, in the same way as the cosmetics industry, has everything to gain to keep up its image in the general public. This is after all business as usual.

The alternative medicine industry are notorious liars, and the lies are usually easy to spot unless you either have invested interests in maintaining the lie, or are incredibly gullible. However the organic food industry is a bit trickier to handle. They have one thing in common with the cosmetic industry, the grand claims are exactly the claims we want to hear about the products we buy (and they have the price tag to go with it). Unfortunately it is hard for people in general to dive into the research, especially because most people don’t have much interest in scientific research even though it is often easily available online if you know how to separate it from the junk. Luckily there are people that do this work for us. I’ll provide some links at the end.

Nutrition and taste

One of the main claims the organic food industry makes is the claim that their produce is more nutritious. This is inconclusive if you look at the research, and by that I mean scientific research where proper methods are used like a proper statistical method, proper data and so on. Most of what you find out there does not qualify (see Dangour et al., 2009). The argument I often hear by people is that organic fertilizer is better for the plants because it is more natural. However as a physicist I know that a molecule or atom is exactly the same regardless of what source it comes from. This argument represent a view that is simplistic and reeks if mysticism, just like most claims made in alternative medicine. Yes, the nutrition content of the produce depends on the availability of nutrition to the plant, but saying the organic farming principles are the sole reason for an increase in nutrition is a bit like claiming a red Ferrari is faster than a blue Lada because the Ferrari is red.

It is also often claimed that organic food taste better. Problem with this argument is that anyone at any time can pick two pieces of fruit, and they can taste differently. It is also well documented that our senses are linked together, and taste is a complex experience influenced greatly by vision, smell, our expectation and even hearing. Quite often people will pick conventional grown food as better tasting because they are usually from better kinds of crops. Another silly idea of the organic food industry is that they often use “older” variations of the plants as it is supposed to be “natural”. But the bulk of the food we eat come from plants and animals that have been genetically manipulated through several millennia with farming and selective breeding. None of them exist in nature.

Toxicity

Another common claim is that the lack of pesticides makes the food less toxic. Well, it is shown that organic food contain less pesticide residue (obviously), but the definition of “toxic” is as much about concentration as it is about the chemicals. There are regulations in place to ensure the content of pesticide is well below toxic levels, so “toxic” is an abused buzzword more than anything. In addition, the plants we eat have evolved defence mechanisms themselves which are natural pesticides. These are also potentially toxic. They are produced on demand to an extent, and are sometimes made in organic food in larger quantities than in conventionally grown food. In addition, the natural pesticides are the dominant pesticides in our food by a fairly large margin. Another point is that food with less added preservatives spoil faster, so products made from organic food can be less safe, a point that counterbalance the pesticide argument. Apparently organic food is  for instance not supposed to be exposed to ionizing radiation either (which is used to kill of micro organisms). The public’s irrational fear of the word radiation in all forms never seize to amaze me. It is another thing that most people don’t understand, but that’s another rant altogether.

Over all, the risk aspect of the organic versus conventional food is complex, and does not consistently favour organic or conventional methods. In addition, and maybe most importantly, the risk is marginal and near non-existent! These arguments does, in my opinion, in no way justify the increased price. And the claims often made indicates to me that the motivation is financial rather than a concern for public health.

Environmental considerations

There is evidence that organic food production is sometimes more environmentally friendly, however this is not always the case, and the methods used to reduce environmental impact are not exclusively connected to organic production methods. Many traditional farming methods, that also have been incorporated into organic production, are also used in conventional food production. One issue with organic farming is that the use of natural fertiliser is not free of environmental impact, both due to the fact they’re less efficient and thus are used in larger quantities, and the fact that they contain roughly the same chemicals as artificial fertiliser simply because those are the chemicals the plants need. Run-off is an issue regardless of method. This is in any case a more complex issue. Policies regarding environmental impact should be applied to all farming, and many places they are. It is commendable that the organic food industry apply some on their own, but this does not way up for the mumbo-jumbo.

In addition, there is the issue of production efficiency and the general availability of food worldwide. Organic food is in my opinion mostly a symptom of the rich west and our collective fascination with hypes and trends and new ideas. Food production is also a political and ethical issue. The focus should be on a balance between environmental considerations and worldwide food availability. The western commercialism aspect of the organic food industry as well as the fact that they walk a fine line when it comes to their claims and their ability to back these up, is enough for me to be suspicious and ultimately avoid these products.

Some Resources

Related links:

(Updated 27.02.2011)

Science can answer moral questions

Sam Harris has made an excellent albeit a bit short TED talk about science and moral questions:

He naturally got a lot of negative critique for this talk. He is not claiming that science can dictate morals exactly, what he is saying is that there are moral truths to be known.  The fact that science has no complete explanation for reality, does not prevent the existence of scientific truths, as does not the lack of a scientific model for morals prevent there from being any moral truths.

Sam Harris has posted a response to the critique here:
Moral confusion in the name of “science”